VOTE NO ON AUSSIE'S REFERENDUM

[freediver]

You may not have noticed this, but Aussie is currently holding a referendum to give himself more power, which he promises to then give up (unless of course some new urgent mission arises that requires him to stay in power no matter what).

Here it is:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/polanimal/view ... f=8&t=8223

Please vote NO for the following reasons:

1) It makes it harder to get rid of really bad admins. This kind of defeats the purpose of having a constitution, as you should not really need one if the admin does the right thing and respects democratic principles.

2) It requires admin discretion on which petitions can be removed, but no limitations on the interpretation. It basically means the admin gets to pick and choose which petitions to delete.

3) Members may have a very good reason for waiting a month to sign a petition. They may be away from the site for a variety of legitimate reasons for a month. They may simply be waiting for a good candidate to come forth before triggering an election.

4) Aussie has not put 'referendum' in the thread title, meaning a number of members may be unaware of what is going on, given the large number of threads about the constitution and the many members who prefer to discuss actual politics rather than monitor internal issues. Aussie even started a thread with a similar title earlier.

5) Aussie has also started shrotening the time period for voting from 7 days down to 6. This appears to be an attempt to establish precedents that allow him to slip changes under the radar.

6) Aussie has tried to help it slip under the radar by describing it as a temporary measure until he comes up with proper changes to the constitution that he has actually thought about. This is despite the fact that he has been promising to change the constition since it existed but has never delivered.

7) In another dangerous precedent, Aussie has already changed the referendum after voting started. This is about as stupid as it gets. It is not just a minor change to the wording, but a substantial change to the meaning. He has not clarified whether voting will be extended to account for the change.

8) Aussie's stated purpose for the change is to allow him to get rid of an existing 'nuisance' petition. This is about the worst possible response to the problem. It means it will take a whole month to get rid of the nuisance petitions, which makes it useless to begin with. If you just ignored them, they would get bumped down the list much quicker. Furthermore, the nuisance members can just start another nuisance petition in a month, and the kerfuffle over whether it is different enough will just draw more attention to it. It makes starting nuisance petitions a fun new game to play. It has started already.

In short, Aussie has come up with a rush change to solve a short term problem that will not work and will harm this forum in the long run. The only likely outcome is that it enables Aussie to hang onto power for a full year or more no matter how much damage he does.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Points noted ...

7) In another dangerous precedent, Aussie has already changed the referendum after voting started.

If you mean the 2 month expirey that was originally 1 month, that was a result of my haggling, on the grounds that like one of your points/reasons mentioned, Animals can be and often are away for greater than 1 month periods.

He has not clarified whether voting will be extended to account for the change.

Fair/reasonable point.

8) Aussie's stated purpose for the change is to allow him to get rid of an existing 'nuisance' petition. This is about the worst possible response to the problem.

Does seem a bit knee-jerk ... but then the petition option's current overuse/abuse is likely to devalue petitions in general.

If you just ignored them, they would get bumped down the list much quicker.

Agreed.

It makes starting nuisance petitions a fun new game to play. It has started already.

Apparently so.

In short, Aussie has come up with a rush change to solve a short term problem that will not work

I said as much. That's why I said to be effective, it'd have to be broad spectrum to preempt loop hole strategies.
Which to some probably seems worse again, solidifying admin power, maybe it is, but if unambiguously worded it would narrow avenues for nuisance and/or petty grievance lobbying.

For the moment, I will reserve my choice and abstain until Aussie demonstrates he come up with something less ad lib/improvised. If it does (eventually) gain my support, it seems Aussie's going to have a hard task convincing other Animals such a rule would be in PA's best interest.

[freediver]

How about this for a rule:

Petition and voting threads may only contain the proposition and the votes (yes or no only)?

It would make vote counting a lot simpler too.

[Jovial Monk]

I don’t quite agree FD—I think amendments to constitutional amendments should be able to be moved in an ordinary thread like the one where Aussie posted his suggested amendment. Once amendments and amendments to amendments are argued and a resolution emerges in a final shape a referendum is started and then there should only be yes or no votes.

The length of time a Petition can stay up, whether we are talking about normal Petitions or a Petition to remove an Admin should first be argues out.

So Aussie has not moved a referendum yet and should discuss/debate all amendments put up, Yogi bear’s and mine in this case. Aussie is being very arbitrary in accepting Yogi Bear’s amendment but not mine—not on at all!

[freediver]

It seems a lot of people don't even realise the vote is on. Remember, Aussie's thread, despite the lack of due notice, appears to be a vote/referendum, not a petition.

Any update yet on whether the closing date changed when Aussie changed what the vote was on?

[Aussie]

16 = not a lot in your opinion? And, if you read the Thread, you will have seen that the deadline is now noon, Tuesday, 17th May, 2011.

[Jovial Monk]

This needs a refresh too.

You can bring a dunce to logic but you can’t make him think.

[freediver]

You mean if I had read all 32 pages of it?

Are you saying there are 16 votes so far? How many each way?

[Aussie]

Last time I checked, it was about 8 all, with not too many of the active group who have not voted.

And BTW, if I have to read it all, I don't see why you can't/shouldn't.

[freediver]

Did you (or anyone else) put together a list of who voted each way?

That way other people can compare their count and check who was left off.